Skip to main content

Topic: foo_dsp_continuator (Read 226880 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Wiesl
  • [*]
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #275
I updated foo_dsp_continuator to version 0.6.1 (from 0.5.0) with the following changes:
===============================================
All Code is now distributed under the GPL license V2, Added GPL license

I've just seen this now, so sorry for bringing it up so late:
  • Have you rewritten the complete source code, or have you asked the previous contributors for permission to change the license?
  • Do you realize that the GPL is incompatible with the foobar2000 SDK license? If you own all the rights to the source code, you can of course release it under the GPL, but anyone else who creates a derived version from the GPL code and releases it would technically be violating the GPL (since loading a plugin at runtime constitutes linking against the (non-GPL) foobar2000 core).


Since there was no license agreement at all I have no glue under which term of license the origianl code is published. But I don't have any problems to change it to another license. Currently I removed the source code after that change at all.

BTW:
IHMO foobar2000.exe is also violating the GPL license (except the developers own a commercial license from Nero).
http://www.foobar2000.org/license.html

FAAD2 - Freeware Advanced Audio (AAC) Decoder including SBR decoding
Copyright © 2003-2005 M. Bakker, Nero Software AG, http://www.nero.com

And FAAD2 is also GPL. (http://www.audiocoding.com/faad2.html)

And:
If Foobar2000 is violating the GPL I'm also allowed to publish the code under the GPL.

Wiesl

  • foosion
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Moderator
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #276
Since there was no license agreement at all I have no glue under which term of license the origianl code is published. But I don't have any problems to change it to another license. Currently I removed the source code after that change at all.
Yes, that is an unfortunate situation. Your best options are to either just add your name in the source code without changing the (non-specified) license, or to contact the original contributor and ask if the agree to a license change.

IHMO foobar2000.exe is also violating the GPL license (except the developers own a commercial license from Nero).
http://www.foobar2000.org/license.html

FAAD2 - Freeware Advanced Audio (AAC) Decoder including SBR decoding
Copyright © 2003-2005 M. Bakker, Nero Software AG, http://www.nero.com

And FAAD2 is also GPL. (http://www.audiocoding.com/faad2.html)
Peter has some agreement with Nero/Menno Bakker, he is not using FAAD2 under the GPL.

If Foobar2000 is violating the GPL I'm also allowed to publish the code under the GPL.
No, that's not how it works.
http://foosion.foobar2000.org/ - my components for foobar2000

  • Wiesl
  • [*]
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #277
If Foobar2000 is violating the GPL I'm also allowed to publish the code under the GPL.
No, that's not how it works.


Under the assumption that foobar2000.exe would be GPL (Which is not the case as you stated):
IHMO it works that way because the GPL is virulent:
foobar2000 uses GPL code => foobar2000 must be GPL => SDK typically uses something from foobar2000 from GPL => SDK must be GPL => Some program uses SDK => program must be GPL.

The second thing is that you can not link non GPL code with GPL code (which is incompatible):
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html

2b:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

=> Derived work and all parts must be GPL.

BTW: There exist other plugins for foobar2000 which are GPL. I've read now the SDK license again and I don't see any license term which are conflicting with the GPL at all as far as the plugins are using only the documented API functions.

Wiesl

  • foosion
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Moderator
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #278
If Foobar2000 is violating the GPL I'm also allowed to publish the code under the GPL.
No, that's not how it works.
Let me clarify this. There are two points here:
  • If some other software violates the GPL, that does not give you the right to violate the GPL as well.
  • Software that violates the GPL is not the same as software that is released under the GPL.
The first one should be clear. The second is a consequence of the GPL itself (emphasis added):
Quote
2. b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Licensing software under the GPL is something that the respective author is responsible for, he or she has to actively do it. Just using or deriving from software that is under the GPL does not make the GPL apply to the derived work. (This is one way to create a GPL violation.)

The second thing is that you can not link non GPL code with GPL code (which is incompatible):
Exactly, and loading a plugin into foobar2000 is linking. Some authors of GPL software think this form of dynamic linking is okay, others don't. (If I remember correctly, the official opinion of the FSF is that it's not allowed.) The foobar2000 SDK license contains no restrictions regarding linking with closed-source programs.

BTW: There exist other plugins for foobar2000 which are GPL. I've read now the SDK license again and I don't see any license term which are conflicting with the GPL at all as far as the plugins are using only the documented API functions.
Well, if their authors own the rights to the source code, they can choose to publish it under whatever license they wish. Unless they also give up their own rights to the source code, they are not bound by this license. However, it may be impossible for other people to create a foobar2000 plugin derived from this cde and publish it without violating the license (be it the GPL or some other one). Admittedly, if you just don't want other people to use your code for a foobar2000 plugin there are simpler ways than using the GPL: You could use a simpler license that includes the clause "You may not use this source code to create and publish a foobar2000 plugin."
http://foosion.foobar2000.org/ - my components for foobar2000

  • Wiesl
  • [*]
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #279
  • Do you realize that the GPL is incompatible with the foobar2000 SDK license?

From your last post there is still no answer why the foobar2000 plugins released under GPL (e.g. of newly written code) should be incompatible with the foobar2000 SDK license. I can't find anything in the license terms which does not allow this combination.

Wiesl

  • Leak
  • [*][*]
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #280
  • Do you realize that the GPL is incompatible with the foobar2000 SDK license?

From your last post there is still no answer why the foobar2000 plugins released under GPL (e.g. of newly written code) should be incompatible with the foobar2000 SDK license. I can't find anything in the license terms which does not allow this combination.

It's not that the Foobar license is against GPL plugins, it's that the GPL itself doesn't allow the plugin to be linked to Foobar since it's license is not GPL compatible.

The GPL guarantees (enforces?) some freedoms that Foobar's license doesn't, and since it also demands the same from the licenses of other code it's linked with, both are incompatible.

The "Usage restrictions" part of the SDK license alone makes it GPL incompatible, since the GPL is about being able to change the code any way you like provided you give others access to the code.
  • Last Edit: 26 March, 2008, 09:00:01 AM by Leak
np: 4'33"

  • Wiesl
  • [*]
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #281
Peter has some agreement with Nero/Menno Bakker, he is not using FAAD2 under the GPL.


Are you sure a license agreement with Menno Bakker/Nero is enough?

As far as I saw in a quick review of FAAD2 2.6.1 copyright holders/authors are:
M. Bakker, Ahead Software AG
M. Bakker, Nero AG
M. Bakker
Alexander Kurpiers
Volker Fischer
Gian-Carlo Pascutto
John Edwards
VideoLAN
Bill May wmay@cisco.com
Quinnware
AudioCoding.com

As you previously discussed all copyright holders must accept the "license change" to proprietary software.

=================================================
Commercial non-GPL licensing of this software is possible.
For more info contact Nero AG through Mpeg4AAClicense@nero.com.
=================================================

Are you sure this is possible?

Wiesl

  • foosion
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Moderator
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #282
The GPL guarantees (enforces?) some freedoms that Foobar's license doesn't, and since it also demands the same from the licenses of other code it's linked with, both are incompatible.
Thanks for pointing that out.

Are you sure this is possible?
I'm sure the Nero lawyers to answer this better than me.

Anyway, I'll stop participating in this discussion now, since I've reached my goal to make you aware of the consequences of sticking the GPL on a foobar2000 plugin.
http://foosion.foobar2000.org/ - my components for foobar2000

  • Wiesl
  • [*]
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #283
The GPL guarantees (enforces?) some freedoms that Foobar's license doesn't, and since it also demands the same from the licenses of other code it's linked with, both are incompatible.
Thanks for pointing that out.

Yes, but the linkage is NOT done by the author of a foobar2000 plugin. It is done by the user who uses the plugin and starts foobar2000.exe with the GPL plugin there. And since the SDK license IHMO doesn't forbid any GPL licensed foobar2000 plugins it is valid to distribute under the GPL. So the GPL is IHMO compatible with a foobar2000 plugin but you may not be allowed to start it within foobar2000.exe.

For example VMWARE in the Linux Kernel has the same issue:
You get some non GPLed software from VMWARE in binary form and some kernel dependend source files which are compiled and linked at runtime module into the GPLV2 kernel. Is this illegal, too?

Wiesl
  • Last Edit: 26 March, 2008, 10:03:28 AM by Wiesl

  • EarlGrey
  • [*]
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #284
Hello, can anybody post a functioning link to foo_dsp_continuator version 0.6.1?

Thank you,
EarlGrey

  • topshot
  • [*]
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #285
Hello, can anybody post a functioning link to foo_dsp_continuator version 0.6.1?

Yes, I'd love to have it too!!! Or email me a copy.

  • blubbo
  • [*]
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #286
nm
  • Last Edit: 26 August, 2008, 12:02:35 PM by blubbo

  • Melomane
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #287
Music is my first love.

foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #288
continuator v 0.5


I am getting a bit confused... what is the latest properly working version of the plugin? It's hard to follow here... thank you.
Back off haters - strictly love we deal with.

  • odyssey
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #289
continuator v 0.5
I am getting a bit confused... what is the latest properly working version of the plugin? It's hard to follow here... thank you.
Hello, can anybody post a functioning link to foo_dsp_continuator version 0.6.1?

Thank you,
EarlGrey
here

This is ...
  • Last Edit: 10 June, 2008, 05:27:19 AM by odyssey
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P

  • Melomane
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #290
v 0.61 as licence problem:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=554947

also the "Toggle plugin on/off from a titleformatting function"  isn't allowed for foobar2000 0.9.5.3,
so the last "working" version of continuator for foobar 0.9.5.3 is 0.5 !
Music is my first love.

  • pokecapn
  • [*]
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #291
Any chance for a working link to 0.6.1?

  • PlazzTT
  • [*][*][*]
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #292
foo_dsp_continuator 0.6.1
http://sharebee.com/1db87fab

I'm using this in foobar 0.9.5.5 with no problems.

  • topshot
  • [*]
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #293
foo_dsp_continuator 0.6.1
http://sharebee.com/1db87fab

I'm using this in foobar 0.9.5.5 with no problems.

Thank you! Just d/l 0.9.5.6 to try out also.

foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #294
Detected malware "Worm.AutoIt.EA" [Virus]

Get this shit out of here !!!

  • novembre
  • [*][*][*]
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #295
Scanned with Virus Total, no reports
link
  • Last Edit: 22 March, 2009, 02:03:21 PM by Yirkha

  • Jim P.
  • [*]
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #296
I think foo_dsp_continuator is supposed to do what I want it to, but I'm having a little trouble actually getting it to work. What I want is to be able to mark certain pairs of songs to play seamlessly, even if I am otherwise crossfading. My understanding is that to accomplish this I should create a metadata tag called CONTINUATOR with a value of "off". But this does not seem to be working for me. For example, if I have five tracks, two of which have a CONTINUATOR tag (like so):

Track 1
Track 2    CONTINUATOR="off"
Track 3    CONTINUATOR="off"
Track 4
Track 5

then the finer points, such as what should happen between Tracks 1 and 2, or between Tracks 3 and 4, are sort of an open question, and I'm totally prepared to figure that out through experimentation. But I figure that at the very least Track 2 into Track 3 should play seamlessly, rather than following my Continuator crossfade settings. It's not working that way for me. Everything still crossfades. I do have the "Override mode with CONTINUATOR tag" box checked, and I have tried both versions 0.5 and 0.6.1. I am using foobar2000 9.6.1. I'm hoping that it's just something simple like that I am implementing the CONTINUATOR tag incorrectly. Do I have the right idea?

  • darkbyte
  • [*][*][*]
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #297
Can somebody please update this plugin for Foobar 1.1.x?
WavPack -b4x4hc
Opus --cvbr --bitrate 256 --framesize 5

  • odyssey
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #298
Can somebody please update this plugin for Foobar 1.1.x?

What needs to be updated?
Can't wait for a HD-AAC encoder :P

  • mudlord
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
foo_dsp_continuator
Reply #299
Newer FB2K versions rely on newer SDKs, so....